Pages

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Earlier, in terms of class acts (bankers, in particular), there was a post that mentioned the 'dead peasant' issue that has come to attention, of late. Not that it wasn't already an established thing. Rather, we now know.

What does 'dead peasant' refer to? Well, it's not a bird in hand in some place like Stratford, Texas (the pheasant capital of the world). Rather, it's a reminder of times past when lords had their serfs (peasants). The lord owned all, much like the modern capitalist thinks he or she owns all under their view.

Gosh, that companies can be given the same rights as a human seems to outrageous. What it does is create a bully, yes legal minds consider that (oh, wait, is that not what many lawyers are?). Of course, given that the legal mind has more on its plate than human rights, what ought we to expect?

Anyone who has worked for a company, both management (lower levels) and non-management, knows that one gives one's soul to the company (you load more than 16 tons and get only cursory attention and respect) and that, in many cases when one is feeble and old, promises of a decent retirement don't come forth.

Getting back to the issue at hand, let's just list a few items with comment.

-- The WSJ had a good overview of the situation. You have to pay to see, but the first part mentions that Bank of America, itself, had received over 17B (yes, billion) at the end of the first quarter of 2009.

-- Hair Balls' comments are accessible. It points to an original storyline (Feb 2009 timeframe).

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Interesting secular take. My first thought was this: how unlike the CEOs of now, celestial stars that they are (in their own eyes manifesting, almost, a perpetual right-of-kings attitude - the Board, of course, as the bestower, thereof).

Following that, and not needing t-issues yet in the scope, thoughts consider that we can look at the current state of the affairs in relation to the time of Paul, via the referenced article.

Briefly, Paul had imperial aspirations, like any CEO, yet his were not based upon needs for aggrandizement or vulgar collections of wealth. Nor, was it to exploit resources according to some doctrine of optimization which, by definition, is sub-optimal for us all, for several reasons.

Paul also had a greater purpose which a modern CEO could argue is outside of his or her scope. Yet, when one looks at the screwed up nature of things, and this is much more than the mere hiccups that we saw with the financial idiots this past year, where is any viewpoint that transcends the silliness?

The mention here, a time or two, that we need 'monks' to run things ought to have some appeal. But, wait! We could start, too, with some mature discussion about term limits. Who the heck needs 'professional' career politicians?

Solve that, and the issue of managers could follow, by law. By the way, see Fallows (same issue): Two years ago, ..., I described an economic symbiosis in which Chinese workers assembled many of the world’s products—while ... America or other rich countries got the lion’s share of the financial returns. It is the announced policy of the Chinese government, and of many Chinese companies, to keep more of the rewards in China. ... Outsiders can rightly criticize the Chinese government ... no one can criticize its ambition to increase the rewards for its people’s work.

Monday, November 30, 2009

Every so often, there will be a post that can relate across the blogs. The subject of this post is an example, as was the train (7oops7, trutheng, fedaerated).

As a reminder, the following list the motivations for the blogs.

Truth engineering - the modern conundrums brought by success applying the artificial methods are wide and deep. Of course, this is debatable as many viewpoints attempt to cover these themselves. Yet, none seem sufficient, except that may be due to the variability inherent in the human. One role for computation will be augmentation, or filling in where we fail (or just don't want to perform) due to either complication or difficulty. It's not laziness, folks, rather many times reluctance is insightful. Watson, of IBM, suggested (paraphrase) that he looked for improvements to alleviate tasks that were repetitious and boring. That is, the 'necessity as the mother of invention' moral applies here. Yet, any accumulation of innovation has side-effects. These appear to have an interminable source. Computation exacerbates the problem due to the speed of change and the vastness of the domain (the ever-growing cloud, for example).

7oops7 - any endeavor ('oops) requires talent and resources in a continual stream (loops), yet managing side-effects (oops) is key. Some call this risk management. Turns out that finance and engineering have similar traits in this matter, though the latter has more of a claim for invoking science. That is, engineering does have a test bed framework that is more real than anything that we've seen possible with finance. But, failures can still lurk.

FEDaerated - our current situation has a basis that is flimsy, for several reasons. Mind you, the flimsiness is not inherent, rather it deals with understanding the issues that truth Engineering tries to address. Unfortunately, wizards (yes, quants, I mean you, in part) run the necessary realms with little oversight. Of course, there is always the blustering of those with top-down power; however, what bottom-up, or middle-out, considerations do we need to address to resolve some of the issues. Not easy to say.

Each blog is to provide a different perspective on a matter so as to fill in a more thorough discussion. That is the hope.

Now, truth engineering gets to look at the fun stuff such as talk about what's mentioned in the Aside on the 'Our basis' post. Some may wonder if the topic can be expanded without resolving, or at least addressing, t-issues. No problem there. In the beginning, there may be more metaphor than fact, yet, so what, as science itself deals both top-down and bottom-up. One thing constant, and consistent, is quasi-empirical approaches of which Lakatos' method of thought experiment is part of the tool kit. Too, the whole dynamic behind the clouded web applies here; we'll see many types of experimentation available now. Analogous efforts, such as business intelligence, are just a little mole hill, so far.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

We can think of knowledge'd states (k'dst) as being of two types. Some use 'intelligence' in trying to describe characteristics related to being able to attain a k'dst. For now, let's assume that we know that there are these types of states and there are those who can attain the states which are, principally, humans, at this point, though as Turing conjectured, an artifact (used advisedly, since it could very well have natural properties or could derive from natural sources) may very well attain what now seems to be strictly applicable only to us.

Just look around, and you'll see that examples abound. The general interest in understanding, and measuring, k'dst events has to do with trying to get a handle on what leads to success, and failure (as the adage says, learn from the failures of others). One major focus for the measurement was the US military services' need to know more about those who came together (i.e. WWI) in very huge influx, namely enlistees (or draftees). Another thrust related to educational filtering (e.g. SAT, MCAT, GRE, ...).

Too, on the one side, the goal may be that the best-and-brightest can be determined in each generation and offered what allows for their success; and, then, secondarily and hopefully, the rest of us would have some benefit from allowing this success (trickle-down). On the other side, the motive would be to reduce the cost of failure (ah, if only the Street would learn, that is, to do more than just suck money out of our pockets).

Even those offered special treatment aren't guaranteed to have success. How can it be otherwise when the underlying, ontological, framework can not get away from hard issues like complexity and undecidability?

Aside: Might those who excel at the difficult tests be counseled that hubris can seem, in many cases, to be the most predictable result from having the cognitive abilities that appear to be related to mastering the tests? And, with the Corporation somehow being given person-hood, do not those at the peak (CEOs), seem to exhibit all the hubris-tic leanings (especially, bankers?)?

But, let's get back to the two types. The first is acquired through effort, as we see with certification-oriented work, such as that offered by institutions. The ultimate in our current culture is the PhD in the academic sense or the MD (or DO) in the health care sense. As well, there are various types, with a large enumeration, of certifications related to essential roles for any advanced society (e.g. Pilot, Firefighter, ...).

One can easily use a metaphor of the mountain for this attainment (of k'dst) which is really an accumulation of a whole lot of things, such as information, skill, et al. Some might argue that the modern bane of high specialization leads to knowing more and more about less and less for the academic roles and to the necessity of continual re-learning for many roles, especially those with ties to technology. Essentially, we have many mountains, implying a slew of peaks.

Ah, that point brings up the second type of k'dst which puts the individual, not the academy, its largess or bestowal of approval, at the center. The autodidact, in a myriad of ways, demonstrates this type of k'dst. The main thing here? Self-directedness in developing k'dst both broadly and deeply. In many cases, the resultant viewpoint is very much unique, almost impossible to express for peer review (the basis for the public orientation of science), yet effective for the individual.

Now, in many cases, that k'dst just described is what we find with a true 'leader' (as opposed to the piratical state of the supposedly good managers). Some have used labels, like guru. One could hypothesize the current mania relating to the personal coach's role results from our recognition of the k'dst's value.

We can point to all sorts of other types of success that are not directly attributable to having certification or having tackled some educational experience offered by others. In a certain sense, the individual is always the key.

And, it can be argued that anyone speaking outside of an area of expertise has to do so as an autodidact. Unless, we have a 'know it all' who has acquired PhD-level in all possible fields (encompassing all possible k'dsts), but, even then, what would be the integrating scheme or theme? The question, of course, suggests that the role of the general expert requires a type of integration which can take a lot effort (the blowhard is not being given serious consideration, at this time, however cannot ignore the element due to issues related to the wisdom of crowds phenomenon).

Aside: Financial advisement, folks, is not this type of integration. No, it is product selling type of k'dst. We'll go more into that later.

By the way, the 'peak' can have several uses in the context of this discussion: as an attribute of the acquisition of someone (that is some type of acme of a k'dst), as a type of denotation of the ability of someone (several ways to describe this further), or, as we would hope, as an indicator of a growing heap, through generations, of our collective knowledge.

The point in this discussion, that will continue under several guises (including t-issues), is to bring forward the autodidact's role, as being important, to any democratic scheme. How else, one has to ask, is the populace not be led like sheep if effort does not go into acquiring the knowledge to know how to decide and to act independently?

Aside: In the current financial situation, people need to take responsibility for their own nest eggs and, actually, help secure those of others from the leeches who are inevitably extant (especially, when gab-standard'd, as now) in situations dealing with money. As, what we have seen, many times, is the 'privatization of profit' (where the fat cats accumulate large pockets) and the 'socialization of loss' (where we little people provide a bail out - without thanks, by the way).

Incidentally, John Galt (and Ayn Rand) have it backwards, unless the modern age has spawned a new breed of best-and-brightest who mostly have their thumbs in their mouths (infantile, yes). It will be the autodidacts' k'dsts, dealing with complicated schemes (take Langan, for an example), upon which the emerging, technologically-advanced, world's advances will rest.

11/29/2009 -- Rationality and risk. Need a new look. Too, there are many more knowledge'd states than covered here; it'll be a task to start a numeration.

11/11/2009 -- A moment to honor veterans, and their kin, many of whom are of far more capability than the supposed best-and-brightest. ..., ... A theme to expand deals with command and control (even parenting or coaching). How many times is this thought of as a superposition? The strong leading the weaker. Ah, isn't that the case with CEOs and their hubris? Well, to be fair, it's a human trait to be overbearing. We learn to dampen this. The key issue is that you want autonomous, smart entities who do not need more than an overview now and then with limited updates from the HQ views. Of course, there needs to be feedback so that HQ can learn what their units have found in the field. Hey, isn't that how science is supposed to work? The experimental basis needs to be sound, within the limits of quasi-empiricism. The theoretic view needs to tie to something supportable (we'll go on at length about this - it is now topsy-turvy -thanks, Chaitin). Now, how is the learning experience supposed to raise up such a generation? From what we've seen, this happens anyway for some. Unfortunately, the promise of many generations (of course, we need both success and failures - boomers will figure in the discussion, since their time is about up) is not met; our task is to see how we can improve the odds for the most. It can be done despite the difficulties related to undecidability, etc.

What is behind this mania (best way to characterize the problem)? Well, casino capitalism lies at the basis. For some reason, our lawmakers keep letting the sirens pull them to choices that are not good for us in the matter.

Not that there aren't related hard problems that can give us grief. What's wrong with stepping back and taking a good look. That is, stop this so-called train; yes, halt the markets. It has happened before.

There are other things to consider, such as, let's unravel those supposedly too big to fail entities that are the giant suckers of value out of the economy.

Remarks:

03/05/2013 -- Ben reigns, but the savers' faces are bruised from his slapping.

10/25/2010 -- Capitalism, as known now, requires an endless supply of suckers.

11/07/2009 -- Actually, there is a train, or, at least, we can use the train metaphor to discuss the economy's purpose and how finance has evolved into a problem (in medical parlance, not unlike a cancer) within that purpose. In other parlance, we can see that funny money (as determined by the FED) actualizes into delusional corners (the push for large mansions, etc.) since there is no being involved. In this sense, the lowly workers' grasp of reality (albeit, painful that it can be - what with the lopsided accumulation of wealth into a few hands - plus, mistreatment by the likes of bankers) is much more firm than is that of the best-and-brightest.

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

Actually, we have the problem that finance confounds things, in its current guise, by necessity. Yet, we have people needing to know now in a reasonable fashion about choices.

Of course, using default logic, one might counsel be careful, and conservative. Forget the clamor and spin, no matter how attractive. Besides, ill-begotten gains (yeah, like we see with the likes of golden sacks and many more) frankly stink.

Only make a change from conservative when there is a strong, and justifiable, need for such.

Note: Consider that those who work with other people's money ought to do it under some type of vow. Let's see the possible list. Fiduciary duty. No side-dealings. (Ah, perhaps, eventually, we could have an impressive enumeration - adding things like, vow of poverty - that is, no remuneration other than some nominal value).

Remarks:

11/01/2010 -- Well, we're still sloughing along. The elections are tomorrow. However, looking at how we got here will continue to be of interest: Adam knew that 'free' had its problems.

The trouble is that busyness has adopted a view of workers as commodity. Unfortunately, the world rewarded this view with a seemingly endless supply of cheap labor. And, those views grew somewhat stronger despite the longer-term issues of sustainability.

A related fact is that there are many of the able-bodied who have never labored (pity the poor souls) at anything. As I've said before, that could be cured by some type of national service that is mandatory. Jaron Lanier wanted to know if we would have intellectuals out in the field working with their hands as automatons took over.

Well, it may be well to be aware that some who work with their hands may actually be smarter than the best-and-brightest. Fat-cat-ness is sometimes like the rising flotsam in the effluent of life.

Many times, we have the fat cats, and some intellectuals, thinking that they're another class, read better. And, what's irritating is the notion that those who use their minds actually work harder than they do. You see, there is no CEO who expends more energy or exhausts bodily health (except, perhaps, in playing the back-slapping game and posturing - I know, isn't it so exhausting psychically) than those of their workers who face danger, wear themselves out physically, and such.

And, being in hock, in a growing fashion, to those who are allowed to entrap one financially is the worse fate. Some employers create indentured servants and even try to carry it forward to their workers' progeny. Oh wait, aren't we now impoverishing our future generations? Also, some bankers are the scourge (see Class Acts) in a sense; at least the pay-day loan people are up front about their snares and traps.

So, it is in the touch where we find the reality notwithstanding the urge for lights-out and hands-off. And, without a decent income, how can we expect to sustain the consumer part of the economy. Oh yes, let your machines play the consumer (there are those who do see that as a possible alternative, with robots in charge of the world).

Yesterday, the President talked to the union heads. Now, the trouble there is that, in many cases, those heads do not really represent those who are doing the toiling; no, union leadership becomes a type of career. Actually, in the worst case, union leadership was seen as the opportunity to exploit the worker. Ought union leadership be a service? Hey wait, should not those elected be representative rather than career-ive? Yes, you guys and gals, Senators and Representatives both, your role is service believe it or not.

Oh yes, we must not forget the finance guys! Hey, how about a type of world where your role would be service, too? Ah, how else can we break you away from your casino capitalism (gaming)? And, the leeching (circulatory system metaphor).

In my recent reading about quants, two views become apparent. There is the set that games in order to fatten the cats further. There is the more enlightened set that would like to make the modeling to be more scientifically oriented. Gosh, think of that? Economics being less of its usual dismal self?

Note: As said before, I dealt with quantitative methods. There was some magic as managers (and other clueless) were dumbfounded at some of our results; yet, we didn't have the direct link of ka-ching (whatever) of the Wall Street hit dumping oodles of money into the pockets of a few. By the way, this is how our magic was repaid: subsequent iterations were expected to produce what was only accomplished by very hard work (more than any CEO could sustain), by proper use of insight, good engineering, and, essentially, resolving intractable issues. Yet, the managers wanted a repeat, with a snap of the fingers. Perhaps, my agreement with the Vienna boys and girls about undecidability is from long observations on how actual accomplishment with computers comes about. Too, we were being quantitative in metric spaces that required high degrees of accuracy since we were going up against nature. Gaming can be metric, but it is very loose, comparatively. My hunch is that the quants are in-between. They deal in something that can weigh down a pocket, yet they have no notion of the reality of near-zero nor can they actually measure as much as their theoretical views seem to indicate.

Friday, September 11, 2009

We mentioned Harvard as an example of risky endeavors as loss bringers. We've been watching this for a year now. Somehow, people complain about the existence of losses when a true accounting would allow us to see real progress as loss constrained to be less than gain, when it was there, of course. Oh, isn't that the basic definition of profit?

One would think that the best-and-brightest at these types of institutions could get a better handle on these things. Perhaps, one of these days it'll happen. How many did Harvard, et al, lead down a path to financial perdition?

Well, that was 7oops7. Now, over here, we brought up Harvard as an example of a little mathematics going a long way (too far, essentially). This was raised in the context of swarm proof which is of interest to how we handle truth.

Well, since the, we've started to look more closely at quants and their magic. Why? Well, the big money seems to be going that way.

So, schools ought to have roles. For one, they can be used as playgrounds (sandboxes), in part. Keep the endowment secure, folks. Too, they can serve as labs for elucidating the major issues, such as undecidability. Also, those quasi-empirical issues ought to be handled by schools.

Remarks:

10/17/2011 -- If we're to challenge Harvard on its duty, then we'll need to beef this up. For one, is education only operationally important, measured in bucks? Ah, so much to discuss.

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Lots of time has gone into getting the econoblog going. But, the viewpoint being established here will still have a basis and will need foundational work.

Actually, it still fundamental, to boot. Take undecidability, for example. It's a term that will be thrown in the mix with underdetermined and more.

One way to look at it here, though, since the Vienna School somewhat stresses its importance, is the old conflict between two views that seem polar but are not really. That is, we can know bottom up and top down.

Over here, in the manifest destiny part of the west, we see bottom up as more important. Some of us do so anyway especially in its support of middle-out. There are those here who are like the old aristocracy (that side of the pond) and really love top down.

Well, being bottom up, we like what we can know and learn. We're so enthusiastic about it that we then accumulate and think that our little collection of pieces goes together nicely. In fact, we're so sure that we're correct that we force ourselves on the rest of the world.

On the other side of the pond, with their longer history, they know what a mess bottom up can be. Too, though, they know top down to an extent that we, over here, haven't had a chance to appreciate yet.

Yes, top down is a mess, too. That's where undecidability comes in. The bottom up guy will adapt his measures to see what he needs. Ah yes. As if this were some revelation that we all need to accept. But, the real top down view, that rides on the bottom up, knows that no collection of pieces is a whole.

Ever. Science really knows that; anyway, those who get beyond their gaming (you see, gaming is the essence of the human existence; though, I'm not talking von Neumann, necessarily.).

Actually, one way to look at this is that nothing is until it is. What? Yes, don't you see those computational people talking about their little prognostications (of many variety) as if they were real and already established (see 700ps7 and outhoused).

Trouble is, as we discuss these things, there are those who daily grind out more mis-balance as they have the okay (for now), the access (for now), and the computational prowess to do their deeds (move monies into their pockets out of those of the hapless). One would hope that, at some point, we can 'truth engineer' some type of daily accounting.

Well, used the Vienna School, more or less, as a marker for the analysis, somewhat analogous to using Minsky to talk about how the unstable comes about in our financial affairs.

11/02/2010 -- A year later, the message is the same, except some changes have occurred. Of real note is that the jobless rate is high; out-housing really set up for that. Also, we need to re-look at that learned from the 'von' guys, Ludwig and Friedrich. See Near Zero.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

08/24/2009 -- Last year, Ben blinked and panicked. He frantically pulled out all stops as if with no thought for tomorrow. Now, he has no use for 'mea culpa' big daddy that he is. Ben, start to unwind now. The Vienna School's view that these things are undecidable (which is a computational issue) is right on.

08/13/2009 -- There are plenty types of foundational issues to address. Some of these will overlap truth engineering interests. One has to appreciate just how different things economic are now in 2009, yet there are age-old dynamics related to human nature that can be better understood now, perhaps.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Some of this may seem moot now, what with Goldman making oodles (the WSJ counsels us to not 'hate' them for it - I say, yes, it's more evidence of near-zero) and with the increasing levels of the equity markets though they are still below the 2007 peak. But, we need to look at money in its various senses and existences. Even the Pope knows of its importance.

The post is precipitated by Marilyn's answer in the Sunday Parade to a subject that had been handled earlier by Investopedia.

Marilyn: Where did the stock money go? -- if she were not so smart, I would worry about her being disingenuous. Sounds more like she has been taken in by those who want to perpetuate what is essentially the big pocket picking scheme.

When Stock Prices Drop, Where's The Money? -- no doubt, these guys are into financial engineering which seems to always move toward pocket picking. But, then, so too does government action seem to run this way. The little guys cannot seem to get a break. (italics added on 8/2/2009 - see Remarks, same date)

Both viewpoints are a little misleading. Why? Several reasons described below.

For one, they do not consider nuances of 'intrinsic' as it applies to value that have been thrown out as not necessary (gaming can be partly to blame). Let's call it Okkam for convenience of the favored. Then, there are some temporal issues that are not addressed. First, a little background is necessary.

What we have is a bunch of people passing along the same few bucks. We can take any number as the basis though the Fed tries to really pin this down. Remember that the Fed can print as many virtual bucks as it want in the fiat situation within which we find ourselves.

These bucks pass at a high rate of speed to where some illusion rises that makes us think that there is more than those basic bucks. Ah, yes, delusion at its best. The illusion is, in part, due to the leveraging notions that have gotten out of hand, but, too, it relates to the casino effect (ca-pital-sino) that has grown to underlay things monetary.

A proper audit (to be defined), from time to time, would allow us to see just how few bucks there really are. We do not have to have the shaky times like we're seeing now where real people get hurt in order to do this audit. Of course, we do know that some of those who are richer (by definition of some, smarter) find themselves in a bind, too.

Now another way that the two articles are misleading is that they do not consider the leech effect. As well, through time monies go into the pockets of the several along the way who sold for more than they bought in the past. Some of it definitely would be in the pockets of those running the game. So, you see, there is a temporal issue that seems to be missing.

Today, the markets are up sharply. Of course, the interest rate is low, but who is lending for speculative buying? Supposedly, liquidity is still not what it was. Some say we're heading to a 15,000 DJIA (who is to know?).

There is definitely more to consider here, as we go along, than just a simple metaphor.

08/27/2009 -- I need to add that the explanations by these two emphasizes the multiplier effect of a fiat currency scheme. However, as the arguments against marking to market tell us, the additional effect is not, by necessity, ponzi or just hot air. (links pending)

08/02/2009 -- Wait! More exposures: "computers, some housed right next to the machines that drive marketplaces like the New York Stock Exchange, enable high-frequency traders to transmit millions of orders at lightning speed and, their detractors contend, reap billions at everyone else's expense." To anyone who isn't at Goldman Sachs or the like, does that appeal to you as the way that we ought to be handling our beans?

07/30/2009 -- Note, everyone, the run up of the DOW lately. I'll agree that a lot of this may be fictitious capital, that is, gained through gaming means. Yet, the movement is real. So, where does the money go when equity tanks? It moves to another look, morphs, if you will (money, no better shape changer exists).

07/29/2009 -- The use of intrinsic will need some discussion, as we don't have to go to the level of t-issues. Rather, there is a broader notion that gets lost in the finance's watered-down abstraction. This theme will be central to the new econoblog (leaning toward FEDaerated).

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

This blog started two years ago with the purpose of looking at issues of computation interacting with being (ourselves, so to speak). That is, we have expertise which has been honed through myriads of years and which has been extended through generations by memes and which is still not sufficient to cover a whole lot of problems (yes, the infamous world hunger, getting a project done on time, and more) that is not capable of handling computing (and truth) without some significant changes (and, it's more than just handling hogwash).

Oh, yes, there are plenty of worldviews with answers already determined even though our experiences can indicate (except to those best-and-brightest who are completely entralled with their own mind's eye) that underdetermination is really our most frequent state (and we learn to make guesses to fill gaps - albeit this can be fun, too).

As it turns out, both engineering and economics have been unending founts of examples that can be used for motivation and illustration. The 787 controversies of the fall of 2007 created the need for a look at those issues, and that caused an engineering focus for awhile. In fact, the first post, beyond the Seeds, was looking at abstraction's appeal which has a very strong pull.

That economics could offer such a wide range of topics related to truth engineering became apparent as engineering does work for the most part (are we not besieged on all sides by products demonstrating engineering prowess?).

We will show that it's the manager mindset that get things screwed up. Over the past couple of years, plenty of the discussion about the looming problems of the economy was right on. It was obvious that things were awry due to fundamental issues and, now we might add, that many of these were not resolved in the crash.

The past few days has the WSJ exclaiming that Goldman Sachs is making money hands over fists. Well, didn't they get a bailout too? Fold themselves under a wing of a government shelter for protection (ain't that so sweet?)?

You see, GS represents that part of the economy that is hardly useful (though, leeches do have an acknowledged medical use) except for its abilities to do the major sucking out of the pockets. Who is looking at their stuff in detail?

Well, will the new day handle these issues or will we just go back to the normal idiocy of a game run by fat cats that consumes lots of resources in maintaining itself and that, for the most part, is not necessary - yet, seems to be taken as some extreme example of the virtues of capitalism?

09/02/2009 -- Lean assumes a current framework which can be improved. That the process is still effective during the change can be checked easily. However, if it is not still effective or we do not have a stable framework, then we were, by necessity, in the undecidable state.

The list is just a sampling and does not indicate any order or agreement with the reviews. We'll deal with the Encyclical's content itself, from time to time, pointing back, of course, to prior discussion here.

Remarks:

02/09/2013 -- This year, we'll get more into t-issues. Plenty of people are looking at science/religion topics. Too, Dawkins was quoted as saying that the existence of God ought to be subject to a scientific test. This can be arranged, given the right framework. Perhaps, I'm too old to see it, but its day will come. And, with its advent, we would not have an explanation, necessarily. The benefit? Progress of a nature not seen due to the dampening related to not allowing the broader views. Mind you, science getting into religion may help root out all of those accumulated bits of dross which are so problematic (too many to name here, but I would attempt such an enumeration if there were interest).

07/29/2009 -- This theme will be central to the new econoblog (leaning toward FEDaerated), especially as we deal with people issues, yes, more than labor to be exploited under outsourcing as colonization.

Sunday, July 5, 2009

The idea is to eventually get to wing-body join issues, at least, exterior configuration. However, a side track down a data analysis road seemed to be apropos (at the time), especially since noise is as ubiquitous as a problem as is the computer in its growing ever-presence.

And, we're talking modeling noise (yes, logic). The discussion is important in that CAE and other programs of this sort that are becoming increasingly in vogue. That is, concept through design to resolving manufacturing issues to testing and then to production use and support is a long and difficult road. Any where along the line, noise (used metaphorically as equivalent) can erupt.

Yet, most assessments (of virtual results) are visual - visualization is the technology. Though, one would wonder when we will bring in the other senses, such as the nosethatknows.

Now, there is another type of 'noise' that is on the operational side and important to the discussion. It's called flutter, and its handling is part of what modeling is trying to do.

Remarks:

07/05/2009 -- One goal of these posts was trying to get to where there can be a discussion about obtaining continuous and smooth from disjoint and lumpy in mathematical modeling. That is, this type of abstract process puts heavy demands on the computational elements in terms of structure and properties. And, yes, folks, open issues still abound, some of whose complications are very much overlooked.

Friday, July 3, 2009

We were briefly looking at some wing-body join issues and decided to talk about modeling related to fairings which would be part of the exterior design. Remember that the recent problem dealt with the internal structure which can be analyzed and tested statically; the external configuration would impact performance in the air.

Now, since we didn't have specifics, some general issues can be addressed. One deals with noise which could be of several types, such as from representational mismatches. Modeling grapples with this type of thing all the time. Knowing about the information and data that is involved is an integral part of any knowledge state.

Many times, truth is both contextual and situational, even if we consider what we can know of the big-t issues. Hence, an operational viewpoint can be our most effective means which then brings up processing which then, in the modern times, involves computation (which is becoming ubiquitous).

Ah, that little thing has grown to be very problematic and will continue to be such.

So, we can assume that a fairing would need to be smooth to reduce complications related to drag. What would smooth mean?

Well, the concept is not unlike what people are used to. Smoothness can be determined by senses; even sight can be used, as a smooth surface is appealing to the eyes in certain circumstances. For instance, the polished look relates to smoothness.

How is the idea of smoothness expressed on the computer via model? Well, it's not as easy as one might think. But, again, a lot of work has gone into this. Let's just say that one has to deal with changes with time (the concept of the derivative in calculus).

For those who drive, you probably heard that applying pressure steadily to the accelerator (which you press to move) so that you have a 'smooth' increase in speed helps with mileage. If you graphed the change in speed, you could then see how well your foot's action worked.

But, consider what would happen if you hit the accelerator in a spastic (perhaps, random) fashion. The car would jerk as it changed speed (up and down) trying to respond to your foot. Of course, there would be low mileage; but, any progress toward the destination would be very slow.

Let's look at an example that isn't specific to wing-body joining but applies nevertheless.

08/20/2009 -- Note 1: 'Derivative(s)' has been used a few times in the posts. The context may imply the usage, hopefully. But, in general, we're talking two types. 1) from finance, where 'derived from' is the proper interpretation (or as one may surmise from posts here and elsewhere, something from nothing). 2) the usual mathematical variety.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

As said, the wing-body join's dynamics are not easy to design for. A design would encompass both the internal structure (where a problem has been found) and the outside cover (which would include a proper fairing). And, fairing design requires higher-order mathematics and real knowledge.

A lot of technology is involved in aero engineering parts, like the fairing, but let's just look at a modeling part of the problem. The fairing and wing design would involve a closed volume which has a surface (albeit a collection of entities that may or may not be smooth - the leading edge, for instance, has stronger requirements than aft pieces) as its boundary.

Creating and analyzing these entities encompasses the design part of the problem. Then, there are the issues related to manufacture. That is, one can model assemblies and parts for design, function, and make issues. At many points, the model can be evaluated to allow choices between alternatives using techniques that require serious computing. Specifics related to materials and methods can be scrutinized.

Since we outsiders don't really have specifics, a little general talk might be of interest. One part of the problem is how do we extract information from data? That is, the fairing surface may have to fit point-set data derived from a CAE program (flow, for instance) which had defined how the entity that meets aerial requirements looks and functions (data). Well, a point-set is not an operable surface, in the context of CAD/CAE/CAM (See CAx).

One can take this problem a step further and consider how sampled data that has measurement, and other, error can be fit so as to extract what the data shows. As an aside, manufacturers, including plane makers, use reverse engineering a lot which is a fitting problem. So, relating to the wing/fairing design, an operable design structure needs to be discovered from the data derived from aero analysis.

One might ask, though, how can data from a CAE program be noisy. Well, it has to do with the differences between representations (necessary both for the model and the mathematics) and the constraints that need to be met, in part. Think of it this way. If you hear something in a language that is unknown to you, does it not sound meaningful, or like noise?

One big problem in modeling by computer is the serious mismatch (several types) that can occur despite a lot of effort and sweat, though some progress seems to have been made.

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

It's probably nice that a whole generation has become proficient with running a computer, albeit that for many it's game related. But, then, too, we have the game creators.

So, that whole thing shows how virtual worlds can (and will) be incorporated into our world for the benefit of the many, albeit that there are several negative energies that can come about, to boot.

So, a project announcing a recent delay brings up themes that have appeared here repeatedly over the last couple of years. Yes, out on a limb with the limb cracking.

You see, that whole thing of PDM has taken on a life of its own. CAE cannot take the place of the world except in localized (related to decisional spaces) areas and in well-understood domains. Composites are not that well known yet.

But, too, PDM covers CAD and all sorts of activities related to scheduling and control. Oh, yes, the computer as the driver. Well, again, these things are too immature (and the argument can be made that they will always be so, despite those who argue for strong AI) to lead the way.

We need people in the loop, yes, people as in breathing things of flesh.

Expect this discussion to continue.

Remarks:

05/27/2012 -- This post has been read lately, prompting an undated comment.

09/02/2009 -- Let's face it, folks, undecidability needs to be discussed and adopted in any complex situational setting, especially if computers are involved. Only hubris pushes us to make loud exclamations about what we're going to do in the future.

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Truth about money is the title; not following the next craze is the theme. It is not necessary, folks, no matter what you hear about jumping on the train as you are told that it's leaving the station for good. The message is that one can sustain a steady growth toward retirement bliss without the assistance of those who only want to suck your wealth into their pockets.

From time to time, there may be posts that touch on issues related to the big T. For instance, there were a few that mentioned the importance of being and people. Both of these get short shrift in the modern, abstracted views. Being has never been understood inside capitalism; labor (and the hands of people providing such -- including brains, too) was just a resource to be exploited. Oh, labor is given a wage. Ah, yes, minimal, usually. Why? Well, profit and rent take the majority.

Now, that's also related to people who, in the majority, are nothing but pawns. Fat cats (supposedly the best-and-brightest) collect most of the takings. And, at the same time, foster the ruination of the common weal (one example of many). Why? Well, some talk about the majority not adjusting to the new requirements (put here arguments related to those who are of the set that has 60% (or more, thanks Milken) - small set (5%, if that), I might add - is their being on the correct side of the human capital equation). Hey, it's a two way street. Business ran off shore to exploit in their new type of colonialism, namely globalization. Some movements were multiply done, as they chased the lowest denominator in terms of remuneration.

Some companies were wise enough to allow people to pursue further education. Lifelong learning, a very noble cause. But, I can easily identify several subjects that managers (capitalists) need to study -- related to their understanding about profits and rent. Old Adam would love it, I really believe.

Now, money may be a lot of things, but mostly it's a pollutant and poison (highly addictive to some - who go to extremely silly means to obtain - Madoff, et al). We have never got to a type of sustainable notion and its related mode, whose metaphor would probably be biological/medical (see Miliken's recent use of a medical metaphor). Money as blood so to speak.

Ours is always boiling, perpetually, due to bubbles whose bursting causes some pause for reflection. But, before you know it, the bulls (with their balls) [hey, the bear is similarly endowed] start to run amok again. People start to talk about not missing the gravy train as it leaves the station for the next peak of silliness (note, China thinking thusly, jumping on the Hedge Fund bandwagon, despite losing oodles via Blackstone - well, were they ever Communists? well, was anyone? is there some underlying issue related to Confucius that needs some understanding?). Getting on that train is not necessary (we'll go into that, to boot, and lay out how casino capitalism will never support the majority - it's a fat cats game only, like Buffet, et al).

Of course, some might point to the government's re-entrance into the marketplace, after having withdrawn sufficiently to allow the running amok. But, who knows how to resolve the issues of bubble identification (as we heard from Ben's predecessor)? Well, we can do that, folks. Too, some view has to temper that of the profiteers and the rent seekers (wage is seen as pittance thrown to the never-do-well; what?; note that wage can go to human capital as well as rent - actually even physical labor deserves its rent).

Not suggesting answers, yet. Just saying here, that before we run off after the new high and subsequent crash, let's keep up the reflection on the whys, using insights bolstered by new knowledge - hey, we're not like 1930s (academics, aside, sheesh - the whole context is so different now).

Well, let it be known, that we'll continue such analysis here. Oh, by the way, it's been said a time or two that we need to look at where the next craze will be. It might be fun to make that more focused, sort of as the lab to test our hypotheses. Yes indeed.

Too, though, if you've read this far, we can lay out rules that work. Okay. No silliness necessary.

08/24/2009 -- Last year, Ben blinked and panicked. He frantically pulled out all stops as if with no thought for tomorrow. Now, he has no use for 'mea culpa' big daddy that he is. Ben, start to unwind now. The Vienna School's view that these things are undecidable (which is a computational issue) is right on.

07/23/2009 -- We see Goldman raking it in. Too, some of the hedge funds have bled, some almost fatally, while at the same time a few have raked it in. How ought we get the type of accounting done that is required? Expect an econoblog soon.

07/17/2009 -- China is over two trillion in bucks. We? In a deep hole except for old Ben B's printing press.

06/27/2009 -- One can relate the T-issues here simply by considering two things: eye of the needle (note comments from viewpoints of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and Tolstoy (see 12/02/07 Remarks).

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Supposing one woke up from a sleep of 30 years (think Rip Van Winkle) or one spent the past 30 in a cloistered environment (think Thomas Merton) and, at the same time, figure that the view before that lapse was fairly aware. The lapse's start would have been before shenanigans that precipitated the recent troubles, somewhat. Could we learn something by looking with this type of view? Would what was learned be of interest?

Why 30 years? Well, it sort of coincides with the post-hippie time. That is, some of the social dynamics that can be associated with the 1960s had run their course. Others were just beginning such as silly business. Too, it is close to 25 years (since Orwell's year of interest); he who worried about what we might call class acts.

Well, as the basics can show, after we collect a few more - never to be complete (and, the major theme here continues to be truth and its engines), we have people in a world which is always moving forward, with things changing, some people gaining (a small set doing so enormously), many losing, the mature trying to establish better means and methods, and some merely playing, all this under that old sun which has observed the gamings of humans for what seems like eternity.

So, we wake up and what do we see. Well, a very rich man, who just a few years ago, said that derivatives (financial, of course) were WMD (look up Iraq circa 2002) and is now dabbling. What gives there? Too, we see daily bombardment via TV and the Internet of information that is related to what is supposedly capitalistic in nature (but is casino-like).

Yes, we see there some millions of bucks oriented toward keeping the game afloat. Mind you, the aforementioned bard (rich guy) got his using rules and methods established in the early 1900s (we're now in the early 2000s). Now, has he left his quibbles behind? Or, is it that he has too much money and just wants to play around?

We see people driving down the street with their minds elsewhere. What? Yes, hurling through space (well, a little more constrained than flight) blindly. Doing things like texting (or venturing into tweet-ville - more later). As if where their minds are is better than where they are. Ah, interesting. But, didn't they see that on Haight-Ashbury? And, so, too, these zombies make themselves and others suffer.

Too, we see all sorts of analysis oriented to wondering what went wrong over the past 30 years some of it containing a bad guy list that looked for culprits. That list does not include one important viewpoint, though, namely Milken. No, any influence that he may have had on the immediate issue would be from the more remote times (pre-1990, let's say); yet, a lot of the acceptance of the gaming can be taken back to Mike's work.

Ah, yes, finance does need some scrutiny from a fresh set of eyes. Fortunately, the basics will allow such to come forth. No hurry, folks, as we cannot be complete, but we can be thorough.

01/15/2015 -- At last, a series that will establish the basis and extensions, as required. We are going to go back to some simple and come forward to the modern, complicated economy. Why? My long chain of ancestors (inherited via Prof. Lucio Arteaga) is one motivation.

09/19/2013 -- To some, evidently, grabbing oodles of money, without due consideration of ramifications to others or to the common weal, is the smartest thing; but, we do know that virtue is smart, to boot. Even the secularists are trying hard to show how their worldview can lead to right living (as in, they do not need God to have a conscience). And, what virtue might be prime important to this discussion? Prudence (see Remarks, this day).

12/05/2011 -- It's interesting how idiotic the supposedly smart can be. The real issue: the failings of an idiot have a small influence; the failings of the 'real idiots' has wide impact (and, in so many ways). Somehow, we muddle through.

11/09/2011 -- It's good to see states making it illegal to text and drive. It ought to be that commonsense says to not. Many who do this with no problem are pushing their luck; unfortunately, when the texter's luck runs out, others get hurt. I79 in West Virginia is the utmost anti-text road; there are no flat spots or straight sections for 160+ miles; it's all up and down and curvy at 70 mph.

04/30/2011 -- The naive view that is described here might be the basis for a re-look at what the idiots have wrought. The rich guy? Of, course Warren. The idiots? Too many to enumerate, unfortunately.

Sunday, June 7, 2009

The modern bane of experiencing too much information, yet having mostly underdetermined states, can lead to coping methods that are problematic, yet operationally effective for the most part.

Say what? Yes, the old adage says that the chemist talks to the physicists who talks to the mathematicians who talks to G-d. This means, of course, that we all cannot be all-knowing (all, meaning, of course, that some claim such). And, in the adage, there is a hierarchy which, in many cases, implies a type of superiority (and accompanying hubris for the less inferior). Also, the invoking of another discipline (usually some type of incomplete punt) without proper assessment (remember the theme of the blog) is not proper though it works, many times.

Civilization requires that we all do whatever it is that we do well while not screwing people (hear this, financial people?).

From time to time, some priviledged class (meaning, of course, of high pay and status) let's us down. Of course, these folks are allowed to fail just like the rest of us. The difference? Their failures hurt bunches of folks, much more than can some failing by a 'joe smoe' (no aspersions here to anyone specificially - seemed to be a cute tag).

The recent tragedy of AF447 has caused a concept called the coffin corner (see Miles O'Brien's blog for a good explanation) to pop into general awareness. In this case, there are all sorts of experts involved that we leave alone to handle these type of issues.

One thing to consider is what other types of 'Say what?' situations are there that may require some type of public awareness beyond what the old adage (above) describes?

That is, the public as a knowing entity; ah, the new media as the potential enabler.

Remarks:

05/28/2011 -- The black box was recovered, via technology. Now, analysis shows that the air speed indicator did freeze causing a state of mis-readings which didn't allow proper control actions on part of the crew. There are a lot of lessons here which we'll get into. However, that computational frameworks and their executional events can get similarly into this type of state, and vertigo is not inappropriate to use here. This bears much discussion.

08/19/2009 -- A whole bunch of say what? events have appeared in the past year. One of these has been the airing of the enthusiasm of quant-crowd as expressed by those going through MFE events. Kudos to those who try and succeed. But, one word of caution is in order. What bubble is going to come about from this new interest? Let me count the ways (in the works).

08/14/2009 -- A whole new type of 'say-what?' is showing up, such as readings of the law that somehow give more rights to corporations' personhood than to real persons.

06/17/2009 -- Here's a 'say-what?'. Milken, whom we'll use as a focal point to discuss several things, talks about the myths about him and makes comment. Mike is lucky that the web exists so as to provide the means for this type of clarification. There are several comments which will be good to analyze and to relate to the topics of this blog. His comment #13 makes him out almost to be the stockholder's Robin Hood.

Remember, the theme here is that a lot of securitization is bunk, many times. Sheesh, talk about a perpetual motion machine, always moving monies from the pockets of the hapless to that of the fat cats.